Re: Varnishtest client user agents

2023-07-11 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp

Dridi Boukelmoune writes:

> Would it be OK to have `client cNAME` send a `User-Agent: vtest
> (cNAME)` or similar to reduce some of it?

I generally just use /c1 /c2 etc in the URL ?


-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp   | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer   | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
___
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev


Varnishtest client user agents

2023-07-11 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
Greetings,

When I write test cases involving multiple requests that don't need to
come from the same client session I try to make one client per
request. When a client reports something wrong, it's usual very
convenient because I don't have to track down too many events.

When I need to jump from a client error to Varnish logs, I find it
increasingly frustrating to actually need to retrace events in the
absence of an X-Varnish header.

Would it be OK to have `client cNAME` send a `User-Agent: vtest
(cNAME)` or similar to reduce some of it?

This should be for the most part transparent, except for test cases
doing request accounting or other header shenanigans (HPACK maybe?)
that should be trivial to adjust.

Thanks,
Dridi
___
varnish-dev mailing list
varnish-dev@varnish-cache.org
https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev